Appeal No. 2000-1078
Application No. 08/836,009
and “[a]ny difference between the claimed species and those of
[Simmons or the British reference] would have been obvious
modifications of the species of [Simmons or the British
reference]” (answer, page 3).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of the rejections before us on this
appeal.
Having fully considered the examiner’s aforequoted
criticisms of claim 4 terminology, we are led to the
determination that the claim terminology in question does not
offend the second paragraph of Section 112. Our reasons for this
determination correspond to those expressed by the appellants on
pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief. It follows that the Section
112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 4 and 5 will not be
sustained.
As for the Section 102 rejection, we share the appellants’
view that none of the prior art compounds specifically identified
in the examiner’s answer satisfies the compound-requirements
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007